Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.12.12BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, December 12, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Loftis called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance included: Community Development Director William Meeker, Senior Planner Ruben Hurin and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and GaulPresent7 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft November 14, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes A motion was made by Chair Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve The November 14, 2016 Minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul6 - Abstain:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Gum noted that he would recuse himself on Agenda Item 9a (723A Laurel Avenue). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.Adopt Planning Commission Calendar for 2017 – Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin A motion was made by Chair Loftis, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve adopt the 2017 Planning Commission Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.85 California Drive, zoned CAR and R-4 - Application for Mitigated Negative Declaration, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Design Review, and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for a new automobile service facility at an existing automobile dealership (Alan Cross, Proto Inc., applicant and architect; Kent Putnam, property owner) (143 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Chair Loftis noted that he reviewed the recording from the prior hearing on this matter. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Noted that Catherine Wade from CirclePoint (the environmental consultant) is also present to respond to questions. Questions of Staff: >Clarified that the Council recommendation will include all aspects of the application. (Hurin - yes.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Kent Putnam and Alan Cross (architect) represented the applicant: Commission Comments/Questions: >Noted that the windows on the rear have been eliminated. The roof plans calls for skylights, but they don't show on the plans. (Putnam - yes. Cross - confirmed that it was an oversight on the roof plan.) >Requested clarification on where visitor parking will be located. (Cross - area fronting California Drive has a portion reserved for customer parking and inventory display.) Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Noted that most of the mitigation measures are pretty standard; has no issues with the environmental analysis - it is acceptable. >Want to encourage the viability of the dealership. >The concern regarding the size of the remaining lot has been alleviated; is a buildable property now. >Project is supportable. >Has some concern about rezoning a portion of the residentially zoned property to CAR zoning . Happy that the project will require the City Council to discuss the issue. Chair Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to recommend that the City Council approve the application. Chair Loftis called for a voice vote, and the motion passed by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - b.832 Linden Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for attached garage for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new attached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(2). (Mehran Soltanzadeh, Kanler, Inc ., applicant and designer; Eric and Siu Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Fanene, property owners) (68 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Chair Loftis noted that he had reviewed the recording from the last discussion of this item. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing Mehran Soltanzadeh (project designer) represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Did the design review consultant review the project renderings? (Soltanzadeh - yes.) >Any thoughts given to providing more screening /landscaping on the left and right sides? (Soltanzadeh - only a 4-foot setback on the left side and are providing a small strip on the right side . Willing to provide more.) >Have the project plans been reviewed with the neighbors? (Soltanzadeh - yes, the property owner did so.) >Has the Acacia tree in the rear yard been removed already? (Soltanzadeh - not yet.) >What is represented by the stipple pattern on the left side of the landscape plan? (Soltanzadeh - turf block.) This is a lot of turf block without much planting. Should consider more softscape. Would like to see another pass at the landscape plan. Public Comments: There were no comments from the public. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Believes a lot of improvements have been made, but still concerned about the special permit for the attached garage given the neighborhood pattern. >Was looking for a compelling argument for an attached garage - the garage is located in "relatively" the same place as the existing garage that is to be removed. However, the neighborhood pattern does not support an attached garage, however, the existing garage is closer to the existing home than it could be built today. Is pushed back from the street and is only a one -car garage. If the Acacia tree were not be removed, then that could also support the attached garage. >Generally in favor of request due to the existing placement of the detached garage. >Why not just build a new detached garage at the existing location? (Hurin - would not comply with the required side setback and the new plan places it further from the neighbor.) >Agrees that there should be a revised landscape plan presented to the Commission. Vice Chair Gum made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve with the following additional condition: a revised landscape plan and garage door design shall be brought back to the Planning Commission as an FYI. Discussion of Motion: >Not supportive of the attached garage as it cuts off much of the property from the neighborhood. Is a standard sized lot that could accommodate a detached garage. >The offset provided from the two-story home to the right is not a point of significance. The Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes home meets the current standards. >Noted that the garage door on the plans is steel - doesn't recall a time when a steel door has been approved in the past. >Asked if there is a modified motion regarding the steel garage door? Suggested including the style of the garage door in the FYI (require door to be approved by Commission.) Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, and Gaul5 - Nay:DeMartini, and Sargent2 - c.1128 Rhinette Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to a previously approved Design Reviewe application for a second story addition and a new detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (e)(1). (Deborah Vieira, applicant and designer; Gabriel and Molly Lamb, property owners) (69 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners DeMartini, Sargent, Bandrapalli and Gum met with the applicant. Commission Gum met with the owner from 1125 Juanita Avenue. Community Development Director Meeker noted an email from Senior Planner Keylon regarding concerns expressed by a neighbor and provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Deborah Viera and Gabriel Lamb represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Have the plans been shared with the neighbor to the rear? (Lamb - have attempted to do so, but the neighbor has preferred to communicate through the City. Viera - the neighbors on both sides have been consulted. Lamb - noted that it has always been intended to place a tree in the rear yard to protect the privacy of the neighbor.) >Requested clarification regarding where the eight -inch increase in the height came from. (Viera - referred to a page in the project plans where the measurements demonstrate where the height increase occurred.) >Doesn't sense anything nefarious. When did this change come to the attention of the applicant? (Viera - November 10th. Lamb - sometime in October.) Has construction continued for the past couple of months? (Lamb/Viera - construction has been paused since staff first contacted the applicant. Meeker - staff authorized the builder to continue with work that doesn't impact the non -conforming portions at their own risk. Lamb - never informed of anything other than the inconsistencies in the measurements.) >When was submittal prepared? (Viera - just after Thanksgiving.) Who was managing the construction? (Lamb - was working with the contractor.) >Is the applicant open to making changes only to the rear if required? (Lamb - yes.) >What structural changes have been considered to reduce the apparent height of the rear elevation? (Lamb - didnt look at adding another angle to the roofline. Viera - have reviewed other options as shown on the plans submitted for this hearing.) >Requested clarification regarding the errors in measurement that caused the changes in the building height. Not over the allowable 30-foot height, but has been built nearly eight -inches closer to the maximum height than it was approved. (Meeker - clarified that the project as built complies with the Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes City's Declining Height Envelope requirement.) >Clarified the history of when the discrepancy in the height was discovered. (Viera - the neighbor became aware of the discrepancy in the survey; Senior Planner Keylon contacted her to meet regarding the issue. Then noticed the difference in the gable height on the rear.) >Asked staff to review the roof certification requirement. (Meeker - at the time that the roof framing is completed, a survey is required to ensure that the built height is consistent with the approved plans. This survey caused discussions to occur between the Building Inspector and Senior Planner Keylon.) >Seems pretty clear that there is a mistake; no one saw it on the applicants end. Is there something missing from the City process or the applicant's process that lead to the building be constructed inconsistent with the approved plans. (Meeker - caught as early as possible by the Building Inspection staff. It is incumbent upon the contractor and the applicant to ensure that the project is completed consistent with the plans. Staff is not on the site 24-hours per day.) What changes in the applicant's process to ensure that this type of error doesn't happen again - seems surprising that it takes a neighbor or City staff to notice the error. (Viera - plans were dimensioned to the degree required. The plans were annotated, but should have provided clearly notations regarding the plate height. Lamb - because the front elevation is very similar, thought that the rear looked correct - doesn't see the rear elevation normally.) >Why is the rear gable higher? (Viera - when built it was assumed that the same plate height would be carried around the entire roofline - this was not consistent with the design approved by the Commission.) >The front gable should have been a foot and one -half lower; would have been noticeable. Is a substantial dimension between the top of the windows and the gables on both the front and the rear; is a bit more difficult to see from the rear due to the perspective. Public Comments: Laurence Chambers - is the concerned neighbor behind the property at 1125 Juanita Avenue. Approached the City to see if any changes had been approved - unfortunately was not caught in time . Builder could have re -built it in the time it has been taken to bring this forward. Should be modified to reflect what was approved by the Commission. Doesn't recall receiving any calls from the applicant regarding the change. Is just asking for a fair review rather than just accepting it because it was built. Michael Grant - neighbor behind at 1121 Juanita Avenue. The increase in the rear elevation height is noticeable and is a significant issue from his perspective. Not sure what can be done to mitigate the issue. Applicant Closing Comments: >Lamb - respects the comments from the neighbors. Never intended to build something that no one likes. Very helpful to hear their perspective. >Commissioner - at what point on the second floor was the plate height to have changed? (Viera - just the roof height was to change to affect the finished ceiling height. Referred to the ceiling plan.) >Lamb - the cost to make the change of the roof is expensive and could cause them to abandon the project. >Viera - was hoping for a resolution this evening, with direction being provided by the Commission. >Lamb - could plant the tree in the rear if it would help the situation. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >What would have been approved as part of the original plans? Frequently when looking at this type of matter, the finding is that the change would not have been accepted. Surprised that the initial plan was approved - this is the benchmark of what is acceptable for the entire house. The options suggested by the applicant do not make sense. What was appropriate for the front should be appropriate for the rear. The second floor is set back much greater than required from the rear property line. Hard to say Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes that this building will stick out as a uniquely sized building in the neighborhood. Feels that rebuilding the rear roof would be a significant undertaking - not sure changing back to what was approved is worth the expense. Feels is approvable as it was built. Perhaps there are some landscaping measures that could be taken to assist with the neighbors' concerns. >Had difficulty reaching a point that this change at the rear would have been approved. Finds it odd that the greater plate height was approved on the front. There is a lot of mass on the rear gable. A simple solution could be to explore adding bay windows subordinate to the gables to reduce the mass on the front and rear elevations. Recalls liking the simplicity of the detailing of the house; doesn't need much added to make it work. >Supports the idea of some sort of structural change as suggested. Minor changes to materials, etc . are generally accepted, but the changes in this instance are very significant. Need to fix the problem and not let it go. >The changes are significant and change the design considerably. Would like to see the rear gable reframed and reduced in height. >Feels that changing the windows in the front changed the appearance - staff had the ability to approve this change. The front elevation is not that much of a change, particularly if the windows were changed back to what was approved. The rear is more concerning - the architect and builder should be cognizant of the details of the plan. Questions whether or not the rear elevation would have been approved. Maybe a screening tree could help, but is a weak solution. The changes suggested by the applicant would only serve to draw attention to the deviations from the approved plan. How long would it take to reframe the rear gable? (Commissioner - could conceivably occur within a few days. Kane - the Commission's purview is to view the design review questions only, irrespective of any financial concerns expressed by the applicant.) >Concern with the neighbors at the rear being concerned about the increased height. Agrees with the approach to make structural changes such as bay windows as suggested earlier. Landscaping could have some impact. >Torn on this issue - the public can render its opinion regarding a proposal, but it remains the Commission's purview to make the decision based upon the design review guidelines. Would this design have been approved? Is a matter of proportion. Can find that the proportion on the rear is no so critical that it is a deal killer. If this was a deliberate variance from the approved plans, the his perspective would be different. >(Kane - be certain that any determination made is based upon a review of the original plans and how any revisions relate to the design review criteria only, applied in a neutral manner. Decision should not be made based upon perceived equity. Meeker - the Commission has the option to consider sending the project to a design review consultant to develop alternatives that are less than, or up to revising the gable on the rear. A lot of information has been provided at this hearing.) >Doesn't feel that the project is approvable now. The window details on the gables can make the proportions look different. Agrees that consultation with a design review consultant could be helpful. >Noted that the plans reviewed in Design Review Study were very difficult to read. The 10-foot plate height didnt come up during the study discussions. Either didn't notice this plate height or determined it was okay. There are other options that should be considered to resolve the problem. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Chair Loftis, to refer the project to a design review consultant to explore alternatives for revising the rear elevation. Discussion of Motion: >Should review involve both the front and rear gables? Feels that both elevations should be reviewed. >The change is relatively insignificant; the front elevation was approved with the greater plate height. >Doesn't believe there is anything that warrants review by a design review consultant. The front elevation can be lived with. Believes the rear should be built the way it was approved. >Revert to the original plans and work with the architect and contractor regarding the rear. >The window changes approved by staff can't be changed at this point. >The change in the windows is a contributing factor to the appearance of the two bays, but doesn't support changing the windows. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote, and the motion failed by the following vote: Aye: 3 - Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Loftis Nay: 4 - DeMartini, Gaul, Gum, and Terrones Commissioner Gaul moved to allow the front elevation to remain as built, but to direct the applicant to revise the rear elevation and gable to be built in accordance with the originally approved plans, irrespective of the windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner DeMartini. Discussion of Motion: >Could give up objections to the design of the front elevation. >Could the applicant apply for another modification? (Meeker - yes. Kane - approval of the design amendment requires a majority vote of the Commission; if this fails, then the structure must be approved per the approved plans with the exception of the window changes approved by staff.) >Is the motion clear enough to provide adequate direction to staff? (Meeker - yes.) >Commission is picking nits on the design; can support the project as built. >Can't see approving the project as currently designed, though there is no issue with the overall increased height of the project. It is all about the proportions. >The motion is supportable as it is unlikely any other motion will pass. Doesn't want to see the entire roof rebuilt. >Review by a design review consultant would be helpful. Chair Loftis asked for a roll call vote on the motion and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Gum, Terrones, Sargent, and Gaul5 - Nay:Loftis, and Bandrapalli2 - d.117 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Negative Declaration, Design Review and Special Permit for a basement for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (E.L. Shimp Builders Inc., applicant and designer; Keith and Beth Taylor TR, property owners) (55 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Commissioner Gum met with the neighbor at 124 Occidental Avenue. Commissioner Terrones met with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin noted receipt of correspondence received after publication of the agenda and provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Elaine Lee and Beth Taylor represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions of the applicant. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >The project is approvable. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - e.Proposed Amendments to Title 25, Chapters 25.08, 25.26, 25.50, 25.59, 25.60, and 25.70 to update existing Secondary (Accessory) Dwelling Unit regulations to be consistent with recently adopted amendments to California Government Code Section 65852.2. The proposed amendments are Statutory Exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15282(h) which exempts the adoption of an ordinance regarding second units in a single family or multifamily residential zone by a city to implement the provisions of Section 65852.1 and 6582.2 of the Government Code as set forth in Section 21080.17 of the Public Resources. There were no ex-parte communications to support. Community Development Director Meeker provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: >Requested clarification regarding the ability to place a kitchen within an accessory building and restrictions upon the number of occupants. (Meeker - yes, kitchens may be installed within accessory buildings to convert the structure to an accessory dwelling unit. The City cannot restrict the number of occupants. The City is required to comply with the recently adopted State law; failure to do so, will require the City to comply with the letter of the State law as adopted. Kane - this is a first effort to comply with State law and may be subject to future iterations depending upon changes in State law in the future.) >Questioned the meaning of the reference to structures intended for human habitation and the waiver of parking. (Meeker - clarified that in instances where the Commission has approved the construction/conversion of an accessory structure to a game room, rumpus room or other room designed for human habitation, the City cannot require additional parking if this space is converted to an accessory dwelling unit as it was originally designed to be part of the use of the primary residential structure for which parking has been provided. This passage would also cover instances where a room within the house is converted to an accessory dwelling unit. Kane - as distinguished from a structure designed only for storage use.) >If there is a car-share facility within a block of an accessory dwelling unit, no parking is required? (Meeker - yes, that is the requirement of State law. Kane - clarified that the City would interpret this to only apply when the vehicles are accessible by the general public.) >Could car-share spaces be created within a single -family area? (Meeker - clarified that the City could choose to convert spaces within a public parking lot to car -share spaces which would be available . However, in instances where these spaces are not available for use by the general public, i .e. 225 California Drive, then this exemption would not be available.) >Were cities consulted regarding the provisions of the new State law? (Meeker/Kane - no.) >Requested clarification regarding the parking waivers - all must apply? (Meeker - yes.) >When do the new standards apply? (Meeker - effective January 1, 2017. If the City receives an Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application in advance of the City's local standards become effective, then strict application of the State law is required. It is anticipated that the new local regulations would become effective in 45 to 60 days.) >Clarified that the Commission's action will be a recommendation. Can modifications be made? (Meeker - can only make changes that do not conflict with State law. Kane - could always be more liberal.) >Noted that non-substantive edits will be forwarded to staff prior to submittal to the City Council. >Hurin - asked if parking can be required for a unit created from non -habitable space; no variances can be considered? (Meeker - conversions of non -habitable space would require parking; a variance from the standard cannot be requested.) >Can tandem spaces provided be "double" tandem (more than two spaces )? (Hurin - no, only one space behind another. Meeker - only one space behind another is permitted.) >Is there a limit to the number of units that can be provided on a property? (Meeker - the City's interpretation is that you can only provide one accessory dwelling unit per property. The local regulation is specific in this regard. Kane - believes that the City's "boarding" regulations, which do not limit occupancy, may need to be reviewed at some point as well.) Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Public Comments: Jerry Deal, J Deal and Associates - if new space is created he understands that the parking must be provided. If something has been permitted, but not yet built, then can it be built per the approval? (Meeker - if the approval has been granted, then it could be built as approved. Kane - will need to review this more closely as usually "vesting" is as of issuance of a building permit.) Are buslines also included in the radius from a transit stop for purposes of parking waivers? (Commissioner - noted that the State law references intersecting buslines. Meeker - the City has no intersecting SAMTRANS buslines, so the waiver does not apply.) Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Should the Millbrae Multi -Modal Station be considered a "transit location" for purposes of the parking waiver? (Meeker - yes, this is appropriate.) >Feels that there should be some reference to the length of stay in accessory dwelling units. (Kane - the entire VRBO/Airbnb discussion is a separate discussion that needs to occur with the City Council . The Council will be taking this issue up in the future. Waiting for current legal challenges in other communities to be decided.) >Noted that a ten unit condominium approved on Floribunda (but not yet built) is being marketed as an Airbnb project; hopes that this issue is addressed sooner rather than later. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance revisions by the City Council and passing along additional comments from the Commission's discussion. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.723-A Laurel Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing duplex dwelling (J. Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Robert and Germaine Alfaro Tr, property owners) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex -parte communications to report . Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Gum recused himself from participating in the discussion - he left the Council Chambers. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of Staff: There were no questions of staff. Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal and Robert and Germaine Alfaro represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >At the site today, there was a vehicle parked in front of the house on the walkway - is this a place where people regularly park? (G. Alfaro - her son parks in that space. Its not a real parking space.) >On the south elevation, the existing door with the roof over it - any thought to including a roof element over the new door? (Deal - could place an eyebrow over the door.) >Any thoughts of providing additional screening on the south side to break up some of the mass? (Deal - the owner is a landscaper; can add more landscaping within the four foot space behind the garage; perhaps a hedge.) When the project comes back provide specifics regarding the landscaping. >Have the plans been shared with the neighbors? (G. Alfaro - haven't done so yet.) Please share the plans before it comes back for action. >(Deal - the owners would like to change the siding to a material that emulates the siding below the water table on both the existing house and the new addition.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Believes it is a nice project. What would be expected in the R 2 district. The height is mitigated by the existing house that is high off of the ground. >Initially thought the design was pretty massive, though there is no maximum FAR in the R 2 zone. Consistent with the neighborhood. >Wants to see how the siding is to be changed when the item comes back for action. >Believes that the differing siding types add something to the scale of the house; adds a "base" to the house. Would lose some of this scale with consistent siding throughout. Commissioner Bandrapalli made a motion, seconded by Commissioner DeMartini, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when ready for action. Chair Loftis asked for a voice vote, and the motion carried by the following vote: Aye:DeMartini, Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Bandrapalli, Sargent, and Gaul7 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Commissioner DeMartini noted the recent meeting of the General Plan Update CAC on December 7, 2016 - reviewed the draft Safety Element and discussed food policy. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Meeker noted the December 6, 2016 City Council Study Session regarding the General Plan Update growth assumptions. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017 December 12, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.1122 Cabrillo Ave - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review application. Accepted. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m. Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on December 12, 2016. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 22, 2016, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $533, which includes noticing costs. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 1/11/2017